Senate GOP fails in final bid to block military pension cuts in budget bill

A final effort by Senate Republicans to halt cuts to pensions of military retirees failed late Tuesday, after Democrats blocked an amendment to the controversial budget bill.

The two-year budget agreement, which cleared a key test vote earlier in the day, was expected to get a final vote no later than Wednesday.

Ahead of the final vote, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., tried unsuccessfully to use a parliamentary tactic to force a vote on the amendment, which he wrote to undo the cuts for military retirees.

A provision in the already House-passed bill would cut retirement benefits for military retirees by $6 billion over 10 years.

Sessions wanted to instead eliminate an estimated $4.2 billion in annual spending by reining in an IRS credit that illegal immigrants have claimed.

He and fellow senators argued the bill unfairly sticks veterans and other military retirees with the cost of new spending.

“It’s not correct, and it should not happen,” Sessions said on the floor.

"By blocking my amendment, they voted to cut pensions for wounded warriors," he said afterwards. "Senators in this chamber have many valid ideas for replacing these pension cuts, including my proposal to close the tax welfare loophole for illegal filers, and all deserved a fair and open hearing. But they were denied.”

Sessions’ office claimed the vote Tuesday to block the amendment was a vote to "cut military pensions instead of cutting welfare for illegal immigrants."

The Republican-led House passed the bill last week in an effort to avoid another stalemate leading to a potential government shutdown, like the one in October that polls showed was largely unpopular with voters.

The two-year budget deal would ease for two years some of the harshest cuts to agency budgets required under automatic spending curbs commonly known as sequestration. It would replace $45 billion in scheduled cuts for the 2014 budget year already underway, easing about half of the scheduled cuts.

"Keep your promise" was the theme of a lobbying effort by the Military Officers Association of America.
The principle of grandfathering these reductions is what is different from previous changes. Military folks signed a contract or series of contracts (reenlistments) based upon the retirement system in place at their first enlistment or commission. These reductions do not honor that contract. The cumulative effect over 20 plus years is substantial.

I went to the Senate website but couldn't find it. Not sure if it would be actually posted there because the democrats blocked all amendments.

This sure is quite the lil ol political ploy. All amendments were blocked and then he offered this solely for the reaction. The cuts (which aren't cuts but rather no raise on cost of living). The house voted on this on virtually party lines and passed it, but it is the dems in the Senates fault that, despite their being no votes on amendments introduced this for the sheer shock value of it?

Yet NOT one Civilian govt worker's pension was touched. What's wrong with that picture ?? Oh yeah, that's a lot of the Dem voting base. Can't F with those folks or they will 'Community Organize in a heartbeat against their own party !!

The apparatchiks--->who most of the Dems here strive to be a part of if not already.

__________________
"If you’re not careful newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed & loving the people who are doing the oppressing." ~ Malcolm X

This sure is quite the lil ol political ploy. All amendments were blocked and then he offered this solely for the reaction. The cuts (which aren't cuts but rather no raise on cost of living). The house voted on this on virtually party lines and passed it, but it is the dems in the Senates fault that, despite their being no votes on amendments introduced this for the sheer shock value of it?

After further review this is how it went.

Sessions offered up the amendment Monday night the 16th. Reid and the democrats voted it down on the 17th 54-46, with all republicans voting for it and one democrat crossing the aisle and voting with them.

Sessions offered up the amendment Monday night the 16th. Reid and the democrats voted it down on the 17th 54-46, with all republicans voting for it and one democrat crossing the aisle and voting with them.

I've read it. Here is what Sessions had to say about it here:“Instead, Majority Leader Reid rushed through this closed-door deal without a single amendment,” Sessions said. “His conference blocked my amendment, for instance, to replace pension cuts for wounded warriors with the closure of a tax welfare loophole. At present we are left with a tax-and-spend plan that also removes a procedural tool to prevent Democrats from exceeding spending limits and raising taxes again in the future.”

This is basically the senate saying "hey, we're going along with what the house voted without changing it."

Who has the majority in the house? I forget. How again does this fall back on dems exclusively? This is a house bill passed by a republican dominated house and the democratic controlled senate didn't change it.

I've read it. Here is what Sessions had to say about it here:“Instead, Majority Leader Reid rushed through this closed-door deal without a single amendment,” Sessions said. “His conference blocked my amendment, for instance, to replace pension cuts for wounded warriors with the closure of a tax welfare loophole. At present we are left with a tax-and-spend plan that also removes a procedural tool to prevent Democrats from exceeding spending limits and raising taxes again in the future.”

This is basically the senate saying "hey, we're going along with what the house voted without changing it."

Who has the majority in the house? I forget. How again does this fall back on dems exclusively? This is a house bill passed by a republican dominated house and the democratic controlled senate didn't change it.

Reid blocking the amendment in the senate subsequently blocks it in the house.

If you're arguing the house should have thought of it and included it fine, but that doesn't change who blocked the idea from going forward. 54 dems and Reid.

That is essentially correct since the Dems are actively blocking this. A much more accurate way to say it though would be

The problem I have is that you don't get to swap one for the other when you are still in the red. Sessions first proposed a different cut to save pensions. I'm in the camp that says "thanks for pointing out two more areas we need to cut, we'll cut those two AS WELL as pensions."

We are well past the point where we can say any and all military spending cuts are off limits. I'm a big pro-military guy but spending in that sector is bloated beyond belief just like the rest of govt spending.

Pensions factor in a very small portion of the DoD budget. The budget is bloated and there are ways to reduce the budget besides this.

Sessions offered up the amendment Monday night the 16th. Reid and the democrats voted it down on the 17th 54-46, with all republicans voting for it and one democrat crossing the aisle and voting with them.

Kotter: "You are lucky I'm truly not the vindictive or psycho type...I'd be careful from now on, and I'd just back the hell off if I were you....otherwise, the Mizzou "extension office" life might get exciting"

Reading elsewhere, the White House raise approved for DoD was 1%, Last year they had a 1.7% COLA increase but thats gone now. So Active duty folk sorta got an ass reaming too. But as the White house points out, Service people can get food stamps…..